Probably the most difficult aspect of Mormonism for the religious world at
large is its anthropomorphism of deity—that is, Latter-day Saints believe that
human beings and God are of the same species; the difference between mortals
and deity is essentially one of degree. In modern Christian feminist writing,
care is taken to use neutral or gender-inclusive language when referring to
deity; to them, God is neither male nor female, but rather includes and
transcends all gender classifications. Much of the justification for this point
of view is based on thoughtful analysis of the use of feminine images and
metaphors in the Bible. More to the point, virtually all the very
well-thought-out rationales arguing for inclusive language from the Christian
feminists are even better used for LDS feminists in their quest to have the
Mother In Heaven doctrine become a theologically viable part of belief and
practice.

Despite its internally logical position vis-à-vis humanity and deity,
Mormonism is plagued by its own insidious efforts to deny full equality to
women. This is evident not only by the proliferation among Mormons of popular
folklore-like "explanations" which erroneously promote culturally-imposed
stereotypes about men and women, but also by its exclusion of women from
ordination to priesthood. This last can be shown as never having been a
revealed doctrine, but simply an unquestioned continuation of millennia-old
sexist tradition. However, lack of priesthood ordination is really a secondary
effect when one considers what Mormonism has done to its own concept of Mother
in Heaven. Not only is the Mother not worshiped, She is not discussed, not
acknowledged in any way as being relevant in any sense. Most Mormons don't pray
to Her, know Her name, believe that revelation can come from Her or about Her.
It is not even known if there is one of Her or more than one of Her.

God the Mother's lot is even grimmer than the usual fare served to LDS women
which constrains their freedom to choose their roles and which straitjackets
their possibilities for service by imposing artificial constraints based on
gender. Her lot is one where God the Father must protect Her name from being
abused; She, although a goddess, cannot take what mortals can dish up in terms
of disrespect without male protection. She is not allowed to talk to her
children; they are not allowed to talk to her. She occupies herself with
unending 1950s American middle-class motherhood roles—she's off in the
celestial incubator having babies, rearing children, and is too busy with the
spirit children to interact in any way with those children who have already
moved into the test phase of their existence (mortality). Of all the ironies,
this must be the greatest: LDS women are constantly told that women are
nurturers by nature, but that our Heavenly Mother—ostensibly what all worthy
LDS women are ultimately destined to become—our Mother is not on the scene to
provide nurturing to her mortal children. “Maternal deism” best describes her
relationship to us: she co-created us, but is too busy to be involved with her
children who are undergoing the ordeal of mortality on earth.

According to the above scenario, the lot of nurturing mortal children is the
exclusive venue of the Father. While there is no question that He does nurture
us, it is obvious from both our rhetoric and practice (and that of the larger
culture) that this particular lesson has not been divined by Mormonism in
general—namely, that males can naturally nurture, too, and that that is a
principal role of a god. Why is this not translated into our mortal lives and
experiences so that men are expected to nurture and care for their children as
well as mothers?

Part of the problem lies in the assumption, borrowed from traditional
Judeo-Christian theology, that it is somehow solely a man's role to be the
provider of food and temporal shelter. God's words to Adam and Eve as they were
being driven from the Garden of Eden have nearly always been taken as
prescriptive (that is, as a reflection of God's will with respect to gender
roles) rather than descriptive of an unequally-yoked, dominant-submissive,
telestial lifestyle. Never mind that Eve worked alongside Adam for their
sustenance (Moses 5:1, also v. 3). Never mind that the picture of the family
that the church insists is the ideal didn't have the possibility of even
existing except among the well-to-do prior to the mid-20th century, and even
now exists only in wealthy pockets of first-world industrial countries. The
fact is that women work, have worked, and have been and are and will be
providers for their families alongside men, just as they have been since the
time of Eve.

Finally, the "ideal" LDS family consists of a father, mother, and children.
But our daily relationship with deity is strictly that of a father and his
children. No mother. How is it that we have been so accepting of this blatant
imbalance?

There is a faint glimmer of hope dawning on the horizon: questions about
Heavenly Mother are being officially acknowledged for the first time. The
answers (or, rather, non-answers) at this time are not satisfying, but the fact
that those in authority have recognized the existence of these issues gives
cause for cautious rejoicing. Full emancipation for both women and men will not
come about until Mormonism fully embraces the image of both a loving Father and
Mother being fully involved with their mortal offspring. The ramifications of
this realization will have a far-reaching impact on the everyday lives of men
and women in and out of the church. Isn't it time that the church return to its
role as a leader in the cause of individual liberty and a champion of the true
relationship between deity and humankind? One can only hope so.

(Update, some 22+ years later: Pretty much nothing has changed. NB: I
incorporated much of the content of this essay into a much larger work, "Issues
in Contemporary Mormon Feminism," 1995.)

ANSWER: “There are basic things that a man needs that a woman does not need.
There are things that a man feels that a woman never does feel. There are basic
things that a woman needs that a man never needs, and there are things that a
woman feels that a man never feels, nor should he. These differences make
women, in basic needs, literally opposite from men.”† —Boyd K. Packer, “The
Equal Rights Amendment,” The Ensign, March 1977.

QUESTIONS: Are women and men members of the same species? If so, how can one
sex’s basic needs be somehow “literally opposite” from the other’s? What are
the things that women feel that men shouldn’t feel? (Menstrual cramps?) What
happens if a man feels something he supposedly “shouldn’t” feel? Does that turn
him into a fake man? What if a woman feels something that she’s “never”
supposed to feel? And how will women and men know if what they’re feeling is
something they’re not supposed to feel?

President Packer continued, “A man, for instance, needs to feel protective,
and yes, dominant, if you will, in leading his family. A woman needs to feel
protected, in the bearing of children and in the nurturing of them… .”

Which men “need” to feel dominant? (Avoid them!) Why does a man “need” to
feel dominant? Isn’t domination antithetical to true leadership and a
characteristic of the “natural man” that King Benjamin says is an enemy to God
(Mosiah 3:19)?

How is the protection a woman supposedly craves any different from the need
for security and safety common to both sexes? Is motherhood somehow more under
attack than meaningful fatherhood? Ironically, LDS men spend less quality time
with their children than non-LDS men; it seems that fatherhood, not motherhood,
is more in need of protection among the saints!§ Don’t men need to feel
protected in the nurturing of their children? Certainly men who choose to spend
time in non-traditional ways—as full-time fathers, for example—seem to need
protection from the verbal attacks and sanctions from right-wing
traditionalists!

President Packer: “When God created male and female, He gave each important
differences in physical attributes, in emotional composition, in family
responsibility.”

With the exception of gross biological distinctions, is there not an
enormous amount of overlap between the sexes—emotionally, spiritually,
intellectually? Where in scripture has God made the kinds of role assignments
alluded to? Moses 5:1 indicates that Eve worked alongside Adam; Moses 5:3
indicates that their male and female offspring “began ... to till the
land, and to tend flocks, and they also begat sons and daughters.” There does
not seem to be quite the division of labor between parenthood and “earning a
living” as modern-day rhetoric insists upon. (And, in fact, this division is
largely a 19th century middle-class innovation, not at all a “timeless” nor
“divinely-mandated” requirement.)

Is it any wonder that women are kept from equal privileges and access to
decision-making power when so many men believe in a definition of “true
womanhood” that all too frequently diverges from adult human behavior?

Finally, and most importantly, does God relate to us as members of
categories or as individuals? Why then do we base practice and policy on
frequently erroneous stereotypes and generalities, rather than on respect for
individual needs and capacities, regardless of sex? Why does so much of current
Church practice seem heavily invested in such simplistic categorizations? Does
God truly place order above what is needful to help each of us progress as
individuals? And why would order be in any way threatened by allowing
individual women and men the opportunity to fulfill the measure of their
creation? Should we continue to mindlessly follow the traditions of the
fathers, even when they are demonstrably harmful to ourselves and others?

† Author's Note: Although published 20 (now 35+) years ago, this
same kind of thinking is still prevalent in the Church today, as numerous
conference talks and Ensign articles unfortunately attest.

§ James T. Duke, “Cultural Continuity and Tension between The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and American Society,” Mormon Studies
Conference, University of Nottingham (U.K.), 6 April 1995.

ANSWER: “Either you represent the teachers and students and champion their
causes or you represent the Brethren who appointed you. You need to decide now
which way you face.” —Harold B. Lee to Boyd K. Packer, when the latter was
first called to a position of significant responsibility in the Church
Educational System.

QUESTIONS: Just as God listens to us, shouldn’t we turn our ears to God and
to one another to hear? And just as God speaks to us, shouldn’t we face one
another to speak? Prayer is two-way, not one-way. Why shouldn’t the Church be
patterned after this divine two-way flow of information and communication?

Likewise, Jesus Christ is both our source of revelation and our advocate
with the Father. Why can’t our leaders represent both the Brethren and those
over whom they have stewardship? Why is such two-way representation seen as
contrary to correct principles of “gospel management”? American political
leaders ostensibly represent both “the government” as well as the interests of
the people governed, and we claim that this system is inspired: why cannot this
same inspired model be implemented in the Church?

Current procedures prevent the rank and file from speaking directly to
leaders on the general level. If my local leader will not speak for me because
he has been told not to, who will speak for me? If my local leader will not ask
my questions for me because of their “feminist” or “intellectual” or possibly
even “homosexual” nature, who will?

D&C 121 specifically enjoins those in authority to meekness
(“teachableness”). As soon as any leader believes that he knows it all—that he
is an “authority generally” by virtue of being a general authority (or leader
at any level)—he will “exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the
souls of people, in varying degree s of
unrighteousness” (v 37). Why? Because one of the chief-most components of
unrighteous dominion is failing to listen and to truly hear (with the mind and
heart).

Without the qualities of humility, meekness, empathy, and awareness, leaders
are not capable of understanding the people they are to serve, nor of
interpreting God’s will for those people in the most correct or beneficial
manner. Further, when leaders dismiss real people’s real concerns as mere
“hyperventilation,” they may be closing themselves off to significant
information which can help shape the kinds of questions and concerns they
should take to God for answers.

Good shepherds have to face their sheep as well as the Overshepherd. Our
“file leaders”—those to whom we are expected to go for counsel—are being taught
to categorize and pigeonhole both the problems members bring to them and the
members themselves, rather than to listen with their hearts and minds and to
seek for the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Elder Lee’s charge to stiffneckedness,
still championed at the highest levels in the Church, is contrary to the gospel
of Jesus Christ and has been the source of much mischief and misery among
us.

ANSWER: Mary Ellen W. Smoot was interviewed by the Ogden, Utah Standard
Examiner a few months after her call as General President of the Relief
Society. According to that interview, published on August 23, 1997, Smoot has
three specific goals for Mormon women. First, “we need to learn to be happy in
the era of life we are in.” According to the Examiner, “Smoot said women
throughout the church are always looking for happiness in the next phase of
their life: when they turn 16, or 21, or when they get married, or when they
have their first baby, or when their children leave home. But …the sisters in
the church need to make the best of the time in which they are living.”

Second, Smoot told the Examiner, she “wants LDS women to be more pro-active,
especially when it comes to genealogy and journal writing. ‘I would like to see
women get out of the mall and away from the television, and start writing their
own story,’ she said about keeping a journal.”

Third, the Examiner reported, “Smoot wants Mormon women to be happy, and set
that example for other women in the world. ‘I don't see women in the world as
happy women,’ she said. ‘We need to learn to be happy women.’”

QUESTIONS: Has President Smoot talked at any length to her predecessors in
the Relief Society General Presidency? If so, how could she possibly conclude
that LDS women are spending their time in the malls or in front of the TV? Does
she know that the majority of LDS women (even in Utah) are working outside the
home to help support their families?

When did the true work of the Relief Society—caring for the needs of the
living poor—get superseded by a preoccupation with genealogy? (It is easier to
deal with ancestors than with the problems of those currently alive, yes, but
the Savior served the living during his earthly ministry.) Is President Smoot
aware of the connotations of the term “pro-active,” particularly when used by
the head of an women’s organization dedicated to Christian charity and service?
Does she understand how incongruous it is to use it in the context of
journal-keeping and genealogy?

Further, will President Smoot encourage LDS women to use Relief Society as a
time to share with one another the stories and experiences she is asking them
to write about in their journals? Does she see LDS women telling the whole
truth of their lives in their journals or simply the “happy” parts?

For whom are President Smoot's goals designed? Will she be able to transcend
the white, middle-class, Wasatch-Front parochialism her comments evidence? Can
her presidency expand its focus and goals to include the needs of women in
second- and third-world countries? In short, will she come to grips with the
root of many women's unhappiness—powerlessness—and the real problems they face,
such as poverty, abuse, discrimination, and narrow definitions of women's
roles?

Finally, was President Smoot chosen for her vision of LDS women being truly
“pro-active” in making the world and the church a better place, or because she
is “safe” and will do absolutely nothing that will threaten the patriarchal
status quo? As was asked on a private LDS women's e-mail discussion group, will
President Smoot act as a gatekeeper for men, rather than as a door opener for
women?

ANSWER: Faithful LDS historians and writers should focus on only those parts
of Church history that are faith-promoting.

QUESTIONS: What does “faith-promoting” mean? What is inferred or implied
when information is included, altered or withheld? For example, what is the
effect on a person's faith when they find out that Joseph Smith had a gun at
Carthage? Or drank wine? Or took plural wives without Emma's consent? How can
one ascertain how this kind of information might affect someone's faith? How is
it measured?

Do we accept as accurate a primary source, such as a diary or journal
account, only on those points which coincide with modern practices and
attitudes? Do we reject those same sources on other points if they clash with
our expectations? Do we hold back some details because they detract from a
particular image? What is the effect on faith when a history book is published
containing misstatements or inaccuracies which have become quite widely known
and identified as such, at least among well-read members? To whom are the
publishers trying to appeal? Whose “faith” is strengthened? Whose faith is
being judged as unimportant to consider?

Had the Church been forthright from the very beginning, standing for truth
instead of fearing that our enemies would use that truth against us, we would
not be having to deal with the compounded consequences at this late date, which
potentially jeopardize the faith of a far broader spectrum of members than
necessary. If the Church fails to tell a more accurate account of the truth in
the face of evidence produced from its own archives, then the faith of
better-educated saints may be damaged.

If the Church admits to the unpleasant and hitherto avoided “inaccuracies”
in its own recorded history, then the faith of those brought up to believe the
sanitized version may be damaged. At the moment, it seems the Church is
adhering to its historical stance of “protecting” the untruth it has propagated
on the grounds that it is “protecting” the faith of this latter category of
people.†

The irony is, of course, that “the truth will out”: often the people whom
the Church is presumably trying to “protect” learn about the things the Church
is hiding. Isn't it better to learn the truth from the Church than from outside
sources? Some saints are seriously shaken and leave, but the majority really do
accept the humanity of the leadership in tandem with divine guidance and can
deal with such “revelations.” Indeed, most people find it far easier to come to
terms with the problematic aspects of our history than with the Church's
continued efforts to cover them up.

Anti-Mormons unnecessarily derive strength from the Church's dissembling.
“If they lied to you about thus-and-so, don't you see that they could be/are
lying about this-and-that?” is a powerfully persuasive argument. The Church is
ultimately ill-served by its unwillingness to tell its own story as fully and
as truthfully as possible, warts and all.

Finally, what does it mean when the Church places more value on public
relations than it does on truth?

† Update, 15 Jan 2013: Just a few weeks ago, the church began publishing
on its official website some fairly frank essays or responses about the
priesthood ban on blacks, the different versions of the First Vision, and so
on… all information that has been widely available on the internet for at least
a good long decade. Too little, too late for some people, no doubt… and
possibly far too much for others.

It is not the Father's lack of any human virtue, but rather our culture's
disvaluing of things female/feminine which makes a male-only God insufficient.
God the Father is a perfect, whole person, encompassing all good traits. He
does indeed nurture us, and that nurturing is well within the scope of his
power and personality. But our culture has divided by gender and placed value
on certain shared human characteristics. This so-called “male-female”
dichotomy permeates our philosophies, our language and, ultimately, how we
perceive ourselves and others. Whether it's “mind over matter,” “spirit over
flesh,” “reason vs. intuition,” “rational vs. affective,” our culture has
divided these paired concepts of human attributes and placed them into “male"
and “female" camps. And nearly always, “masculine” attributes have been held in
higher esteem than “feminine” attributes.

So long as our view of our Heavenly Parents is colored and slanted by our
telestial culture's gender-based dichotomizing of human personality, we cannot
perceive of both of Them as They are: perfect human beings, co-equal,
possessed of the same traits in perfect degree, endowed with power and majesty
in equal degree. As we now perceive Her, with our own attitudes influenced by
our cultural, social, and linguistic heritage about the relative superiority
and inferiority of male and female, our Mother is as nameless, faceless, and as
powerless as mortal women. Only knowledge of and from the Mother will put an
end to this false image.

Further, there is much evidence to support the idea that the blinders and
biases of patriarchal culture have made and continue to make it virtually
impossible for us to discern our Mother working in tandem with our Father on
our behalf throughout history. Our scriptures and current LDS discourse reflect
these same patriarchal blinders and biases.

The restoration of all things, still in progress, will include the
restoration of the knowledge of our Mother's rightful place in our
understanding and worship of God. In short, I believe God is and will
ultimately be revealed to be bom our Father and our Mother, not one
without the other. That, to me, is the only conclusion of the doctrine of
eternal progression which logically explains and takes into account the
individual capacities and desires of all human beings, whether male or
female.

There are all kinds of gardeners. Some don't like bugs. To them, anything
that crawls or flies is viewed as dangerous and undesirable, so these gardeners
tend to apply broad-spectrum, highly toxic pesticides to rid the garden of what
they view as pests. The fact that good bugs get killed off along with bad
increases the gardener's reliance on chemicals from season to season.

Some gardeners are aware that good bugs along with bad bugs will get killed
by the broad-spectrum pesticides, but opt to use them anyway because it's
easier, not so labor-intensive, and seems to answer the immediate needs of the
garden.

Some gardeners plant the same things over and over again, in the same spot,
year after year. They know or care little about hybridization and the value of
rotation. They don't know what kinds of seeds and varieties are available. They
tend to over-fertilize, pointing with pride to the flourishing, immense
greenery—but refuse to see that the yield in actual fruit belies the appearance
of growth. Ultimately they exhaust the soil, have lower yields, contaminate the
water supply and increase the odds that blight or disease will wipe out the one
or two crops they persist in planting.

There have likewise been unintentional and harmful consequences to using
non-organic methods when tending Christ's garden. Employing harsh chemical
treatments and injurious mechanized processes in the quest to force growth
increases the risk of poisoning ourselves with the residues. Far too many
people are refusing to eat of the tree of life because they fear it has been
contaminated with the pesticide of institutional coercion and pride. Worse, far
too many people have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life, only to find
the worm of unrighteous dominion nibbling away at the core.

Good, unharmful, natural gardening isn't easy. Many problems can be overcome
when gardeners talk to other gardeners—even gardeners younger than they, whose
plots may be smaller. Good master gardeners listen to others with more
expertise than they in dealing with particular problems, pests or fertilizers.
Good master gardeners listen to the questions and problems of less-experienced
gardeners before attempting to give answers or advice.

Good gardeners study and develop new seeds and hybrids. They don't scorn
advice but seek it. They recognize the value of innovative approaches, of crop
diversity, of using good insects to counteract bad insects, of careful planting
and cultivation of natural pest- and weed-controlling plants. They value
methods based on real-life, contemporary experience, rather than slavishly
following past routines solely because "that's the way we've always done it in
this garden." They are willing to discard traditional methods which have
demonstrably proven harmful. They don't simply assume that the Head Gardener
approves of such methods simply because those methods have been around for
awhile, or because they are described in back issues of "Good Gardening Tips"
from long ago. Some of those past "tips" have been toxic in the extreme.

Good master gardeners do not condemn new ideas and methods out of hand, but
wait to see the quality of the fruit and the yield. They do not restrict other
gardeners' use of tools and natural fertilizers and new seeds nor access to the
garden itself—saying to some, "you're a woman, you should be happy to plant
tomatoes; and by the way, don't touch the hoe," or "you're a man, you need to
concentrate on corn, and leave the tomatoes alone." Good master gardeners
garden for the joy of it and allow other individuals the same opportunity for
finding joy in their own fields of labor.

Good master gardeners take seriously Christ's maxim, "by their fruits ye
shall know them," rather than allowing capriciousness, prejudice and cultural
bias to dictate what or who gets pruned or plucked up—and when. Just as God
restrains the angels from plucking up the tares until this can be done without
harming the wheat, good gardeners understand how easy it is to mistake wheat
for tares, and how important it is to show equal forbearance. Good gardeners
understand from the parable in Jacob 5 that even wild branches are necessary to
the life and productivity of a tame olive tree.

Like any garden, Christ's garden can truly thrive only when diversity is
understood and respected. Using organic methods may take some getting used to.
Initially the yield may be a bit lower without use of fertilizers and
pesticides. (Careful weeding and mulching make herbicides unnecessary.)
Sometimes organic produce must be washed a little more carefully to get rid of
"little visitors," and sometimes it doesn't look quite so good as the
slickly-waxed, commercially-grown stuff. But there's no comparing taste,
healthfulness or overall quality of the fruit.

Those who blitz Christ's garden with the poison of intolerance for fear of
letting a few bugs in or a few weeds grow will certainly have some explaining
to do to the Head Gardener. Only tending His garden with care and kindness will
elicit the "well done" we each hope to hear from Him.

ANSWER: The first law of heaven is obedience. If a leader tells us to do
something, we should do it; if it turns out that what we did was wrong, the sin
will be on the head of the leader, not ours.

QUESTIONS: What is the point of having a conscience, what is the point of
receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, if we are willing to overrule both
conscience and Spirit in deference to a human leader's commandments? An earthly
tribunal at Nuremberg found the excuse of "I was only following orders" morally
bankrupt. Why would a heavenly tribunal find such a rationalization any less
reprehensible?

Obedience is "the first law of heaven" onhj when it is defined as "obedience
to correct principles." Is blind loyalty to leadership more important in the
eternal scheme of things than loyalty to righteousness and godliness? Is there
any virtue in being obedient to evil, in doing what one knows in one's heart to
be wrong? Isn't such "obedience" tantamount to denying the Holy Ghost?

Sociologist Stanley Milgram's famous experiments clearly showed how
willingly most people relinquish personal responsibility for their actions.
Most people obeyed orders even when those orders went counter to their own
sense of justice and morality; afterwards, they were quick to shift all
culpability to the authority figure.

The desire to duck personal accountability seems to genuinely characterize
mortal human behavior; if we are expected to "put off the natural woman" in this life, then is it not required of us to take
responsibility for our own actions, to "act and not be acted upon"? Isn't it
more courageous and Christlike to stand for what is right and good, even if we
risk the displeasure of leaders, censure or punishment, or even death? What is
a life without integrity? Can we become godlike if we fail to act according to
godly principles?

Finally, who besides Jesus Christ can take on someone else's sins? Isn't it
the ultimate presumption for a fallible mortal, no matter his position, to
promise that "if you do what I say, God will hold me responsible for what you
do"? Has God ever ratified such a rash claim? If we believe and act on such
claims, we are putting our trust in the arm of flesh, searing our consciences
with as a hot iron, and dooming ourselves to spiritual infantilism.

If we are to progress, we must learn to discern right and wrong for
ourselves; we must learn to negotiate the grey areas, cope with ambiguity and
make hard choices according to our own best knowledge and judgment, rather than
continually defer to others, some of whom are only too happy to acquire more
and more power and control over others. If a leader's orders cannot pass the
litmus test of personal conscience, we obey such orders at the peril of our
spiritual integrity, and possibly our eternal life.

The war in heaven was all about our agency—our freedom to choose good or
evil. Perhaps, then, it is more accurate to say that it is freedom to obey, and
not obedience itself, that is the first law of heaven. Ultimately, to obey evil
is to negate God's plan of eternal progression. Did we win that war in heaven
only to lose it here on earth?

ANSWER: The gospel has been the same in every dispensation. There is no
precedent, scriptural or otherwise, for women holding the priesthood.

QUESTIONS: Does the Church still believe in the Sixth Article of Faith ("We
believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church…")? If
so, then how is it that women in the modern church are excluded from positions
of ministering authority and leadership? More and more compelling evidence is
coming to light that a number of early Christian women among the Gentiles held
positions roughly comparable to that of the modern branch president or bishop;
that they actively participated in such priesthood ordinances as the
administration of the sacrament, baptism and the laying on of hands. The
"greetings" found in Paul's epistles mention in passing women who are given the
titles of deacon, overseer (or elder), and even apostle (Junia, "of note among
the apostles," Romans 16:7). Headstones and inscriptions found in the earliest,
Christian burial grounds mention women as priests and elders.

In Old Testament times, what are we to make of Deborah, a prophetess who was
the judge in Israel for 40 years? (See Judges 4-5.) Or the prophetess Huldah,
to whom the high priest turned for revelation from God during the reign of King
Josiah? (See II Kings 22 and II Chronicles 34.) By what power and authority did
they act? Where are their counterparts today?

Our own latter-day history is fraught with contradictions and ambiguity
vis-a-vis women's relationship to priesthood authority. Women wear the robes of
the priesthood in our own temples, and use the same words as men to pass
through the veil into the Celestial Room. Surely these are nor empty rituals or
words—? Moreover, what are we to make of myriad diary and journal en¬tries that
explicitly connect 19th century LDS women with priesthood?

If we still believe in the Sixth Article of Faith, shouldn't we make use of
the Ninth Article of Faith (" …we believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the
Kingdom of God") to effectively deal with these inconsistencies?

Answer: To question or complain about church programs or policies is the
same as "steadying the ark. " It shows a lack of faith in God and in the
leaders God has chosen.

Questions: Are church leaders infallible? Do all church programs work well?
Are there never times when it is appropriate to say, "this program or policy is
having a negative effect on me, my family, my ward, people I know"? Is it
inappropriate to provide feedback or crucial information about local conditions
that decision-makers in Salt Lake might not be aware of? Is it wrong to ask
questions in a church that began with a question?

The story of the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers 27) seems instructive.
These women stood to have no inheritance whatso¬ever in the Promised Land, so
they went to the authorized leader, Moses, and presented their case. Moses had
never thought about the inequitable situation he was on the brink of
inaugurating. But instead of chastizing the women for their "presumption," or
scolding them for faithlessness or accusing them of not sustaining him as the
prophet, he took their concerns to the Lord. The result was a re¬working of the
inheritance laws to take into account female posterity. (Not necessarily the
greatest system from a modern point of view, but far better than the original
plan.)

It is an integral, essential part of sustaining our leaders to give them
honest feedback. It is important for leaders to know the kinds of questions for
which we (women in particular) desire prophetic, revelatory answers—not because
such answers cannot be found privately and personally, but because the impact
of such questions and answers extends far beyond the private and personal.

As with the story in Numbers 27, women's concerns may otherwise never enter
into male leaders' consciousness if we stay silent. We are not asking general
authorities for their fallible, mortal opinions about doctrines and practices,
but rather, we are providing honest feedback to and asking questions of our
leaders in the hope that they will respond like Moses and take these concerns
to the Lord and receive real answers.

If asking our leaders to ask God about things which have a broad-ranging
impact in the lives of the members of Christ's church is "inappropriate," then
what in the world is the point of having modern prophets at all?

Imagine, if you will, a basketball team with both men and women listed on
the official roster. Some of the women are naturally athletic and talented and
have diligently practiced and memorized the game plan. Indeed, the coaches and
managers have encouraged the women to develop their playing skills as much as
possible. Consequently, some women play as well as the best men. At game time,
however, the team managers—all male—allow only men on the court. The managers
tell the women that it is much more important for them to be cheerleaders than
it is to be players. (The managers even pick some women to be the head
cheerleaders, but the managers still have to approve the cheerleading
routines.)

When some women complain that they don't like cheer-leading and would much
rather play, they are told various things: "basketball has always been a men's
game"; "you are naturally suited to be cheerleaders, not players"; "we don't
want you to get injured out there on the basketball court"; "you play far
better than the men so the men really need to have the time on the court." If
some women ask why they were encouraged to develop their playing skills if they
weren't going to be able to use them, or if they still insist they could be of
more value to the team by playing rather than cheerleading, the managers tell
them that "you will be better able to train the next generation of basketball
players," or "what you're saying is that you really don't like basketball," or
"you don't really want to be on this team."

If the women have the audacity to ask the team managers if they've asked
what the team owner thinks about the way they're running the game, they are
accused of trying to undermine team morale, of really being "for" the other
team. (Some women who like cheerleading accuse the women who want to play of
wanting to force all women to play. And of course, men who don't want to play
or would rather lead cheers don't fare well either.) Many cheerleaders and male
players are quick to come to the managers' defense and say that "of course the
managers have consulted with the team owner—it's the owner's team, isn't it?"
But the managers themselves never answer the question directly, so the women
who want to play still don't know if the managers have ever asked, or if the
owner really is responsible for their not being allowed to play. As these women
continue to ask, the managers will occasionally instruct some of the male
players and coaches to escort the "uncooperative" women out of the playing
arena, take back their uniforms and equipment, and scratch their names from the
roster entirely.

The game is not yet over, and the other team is making points. When the
other team gets too far ahead, perhaps the managers really will think to ask
the owner if it's okay to use some of the team's best players on court, even if
they are women. Or maybe the owner, having been directly informed about what's
going on by those who don't think the policies are fair or in the team's best
interests, will finally have to intervene directly by retiring some of the most
closed-minded managers, or by sending a memo.

When the Relief Society lost its financial autonomy and control over its own
curriculum, its heritage was obscured and its ability to fulfill the broad
vision of its original mandate was eviscerated. But women were told that
becoming a correlated part of the church would place the Relief Society where
certain men in authority thought it belonged— "under the umbrella of the
priesthood." An interesting metaphor.

An umbrella serves to protect those underneath it from rain and sleet and
snow. But how efficaciously an umbrella serves its purpose depends for the most
part on how it is held. If the person holding the umbrella is mean-spirited,
that person will not care if the other person is getting wet and sometimes will
act in ways to ensure that the other party gets wet. Other times, without any
ill-will or evil intent, the person holding the umbrella is simply oblivious to
the needs of the other party. Sometimes the person holding an umbrella simply
doesn't know how to hold it in the best way, and the other person gets poked in
the eye along with getting wet.

Holding an umbrella is a big responsibility and can be hard to do. I have
not always successfully held an umbrella—especially when I've tried to hold it
for someone much taller than myself, or for a small child, or when it's been
especially windy out. How encouraging to know that women in times past have
held umbrellas perfectly well! Yet most men in authority have been adept at
ignoring both this fact and the fact that women today have as great a need to
hold onto the umbrella as be protected by it. (And that men often need women's
hands-on help in holding umbrellas in the storms of life.)

I have found that the best way to share an umbrella, when possible, is to
have both parties underneath hold onto it. This is an especially good method
among adults: doing so minimizes the risk of poked eyes, and maximizes the
chances that the things that really must stay dry will stay dry. It also allows
the holders to "even out" the wetness, if such must occur, and to selflessly
give up part of the protection if they believe the other person's needs are
greater than their own.

It is hard to do much of anything to avoid getting wet except to ask for
greater consideration, and ask repeatedly if necessary, if one doesn't have any
direct control over the umbrella. When the Relief Society was unilaterally
placed under the priesthood umbrella (this was not something Belle Spafford
et al. requested—evidently these spiritually sensitive women didn't
realize they needed protection), the impact on the local and general levels was
enormous. There have been clearly negative consequences for women having to
seek human male approval for projects that used to be decided upon by women and
the Lord; by having no control over the purse-strings; and by having men in
charge of women's curriculum. This last in particular has resulted in the
silencing of women's voices within the Relief Society itself: our recycled
manuals have hardly any women's voices or experiences in them. It's all male
discourse; nearly all of what few women's stories have been included are told
in a male voice and from a male perspective.

In short, the net result of placing the Relief Society under the umbrella of
patriarchal priesthood has been to transform it into an organization of women
that is run at the behest of and by permission of men—men who select the
nominal female leadership. The best we've been able to hope for, under the
circumstances, is that the men who run the Relief Society (generally and
locally) are inspired. Sometimes they have been. Sometimes they most definitely
have not been. Some men have insisted on holding an umbrella over women's heads
even when the sun is shining. Sometimes some men have decided, even in the
midst of a thunderstorm, that it's no longer raining and have walked off with
the umbrella, leaving the umbrella-less women to fend for themselves. And then
these same men criticize women for taking shelter elsewhere when the correlated
Relief Society cannot meet their needs. What then? It seems past time for us to
"get a grip" and regain the control we have lost.

I wish someone would explain to me why it is that airlines rarely seem to
print the year as part of the date on their boarding passes. With
print-your-own passes, this is not such a big deal (since the date is usually
included on the passes themselves, but if not, there's often a timestamp from
the printer to rely on), but dealing with old, tangible, airline-issued passes
are a problem. I have a stack of boarding cards with semi-valuable trip
information… but having to track down the travel years that I'm not completely
sure of is a big pain.

Is the "no-year" some kind of security feature? Or a limitation of boarding
pass printing devices? Or is it a choice of the outbound airport? There are a
few airlines with years included… but not for every airport, looks like. I've
come across little documents pointing to trips around the same dates for
different successive years. As with illegible receipts, I may simple have to
note what incomplete or legible info there is, if any, and then toss whatever
it is into the recycling bin with a philosophical shrug of my shoulders. (I am
getting better about this.)

Obviously it would have been much smarter for me to have been entering all
the data immediately after the fact, but that is not the reality I am dealing
with now, alas. Tracking travel dates has involved first wracking my brain,
guessing whom I might have notified about the trip based on the destination
(when the boarding pass is not clearly just for a layover airport)… and then
looking through my email accounts using whatever search-term info I have (i.e.,
partial date, airline name, etc.). Tedious. However, when I come across a
relevant email, it's usually chock-full of other kinds of details, so I guess
that's a good thing.

— Given the felicitous results of an email search, one might ask, of course,
why I don't just start out by going through my "sent-messages" first. Well,
silly billies, that would not necessarily advance the goal of getting rid of
the tangible papers, right? Right? (Ummm….)

Per my previous entry (goodness, some 15+ months ago! oy!), I've been
entering old receipts into Excel before tossing them, the idea being that they
will help jog my memory about all of the events and details that I should have
written down at the time, but rarely did. There are a few receipts that have,
in fact, served this purpose, and others — well, OK, the vast majority — which
will simply end up serving as testaments along the lines of "I was at this
place on this date." (Or at least somebody in the family was there,
likely me but possibly Mr Mo; I try not to worry about this too much. I'm the
fanatical receipt-and-paper-keeper, after all.)

Anyway, I'm starting to look at the more global comings and goings aspect of
receipt-keeping, which I have hereby christened "receipt-mapping." (I would
like to think that this term is original with me, but somehow I imagine other
people have come up with this before, even though all I've been seeing from
searching on Teh Google are references to accounting software mapping for
receipts, which is not the same thing. Breathe here.) This is an easier idea
and process to deal with than trying to write out rich and eloquent blog
entries about the "detail-jogger" receipts, though I expect to do that as well
(frequently, in fact — such is my goal). At some point I will have to look
around for an easy app that can deal with all this data in a graphically
appealing way.

The impetus for this particular blog entry is looking through one of the
spreadsheets for the "perfect" detail-jogger receipt with which to start my
glorious renewed blogging effort. One receipt for early August 2007 sort of
qualified — it's a receipt for a hotel (http://www.hotelvela.com) stay in
Trento, Italy, along Autostrada A22 just as the Italian Alps start to really
live up to the name, en route to Munich where Mr Mo and Larry (his business
partner) were working for AutoScout24 at the time. The hotel was kind of a
dive, but there was a restaurant (of sorts) on the premises, and it was late
enough in the day that pretty much anything was going to be acceptable. (That's
my story, and I'm sticking to it.)

Now what I don't remember (and will take a bit of other digging to figure
out) is if I did the drive alone, or with Eliza, or with Mr Mo (pretty sure I
didn't do it with both Mr Mo and Youngest). I know that I did the
Quinson-to-Munich-via-Italy drive at least twice, and did another similar drive
with Mr Mo en route to Berlin not very long ago. I think that once I've
finished entering (ha! ha!) and then sorting the entries by year, such
questions will be somewhat easier to answer without having to resort to other
means — such as asking Mr Mo or Youngest, who may remember, or who in the case
of the former would have the business receipts handy — or handier.

(The fact that I have the Trento hotel receipt suggests that this was a solo
drive or a drive with Eliza. I do know, however, from an entered receipt for
entrance to the Munich Mineral Museum — entschuldigen Sie, 'Das Museum
Reich der Kristalle' — a few days later, that this was a "going-to" trip,
not a return trip. … And as I have utterly no recollection of a return drive,
I'm guessing I ended up driving Larry's car and leaving it there, and then
flying back sometime later — after, now as I think of it, after I
drove over to Walldorf (near Heidelberg) to interview at SAP. Would I have done
so in Larry's car? Hmm. More mysteries to solve! — Indeed, no end of mysteries
to solve.)

So! To the mapmobile, as it were. Bis bald…

UPDATE: Looking at the Hotel Vela's website, it's clear from the per-person
price list that two of us stayed there.

My immediate family knows, and probably a fair number of friends do, too,
that I am a bit of a packrat. (Oh, come on now, there is no reason to ROFLYAO.)
So I have started a project to get rid of things — well, okay, in particular,
to get rid of papers. How I have chosen to do so may elicit a few more guffaws,
but hey — other people (who shall remain nameless) choose to use their leisure
time in ways that I consider wasteful(!!), so I claim the right to waste my
leisure time in whatever way I choose.

So here's my choice: I am recording the bare-bones information for a fair
number of papers (receipts in particular) before I throw them away. Let's put
it this way: doing so makes it possible for me to throw them away, and
guess what: I've been able to recover a lot of personal history and fill in
some gaps by doing so. This is important to me, given how ... surprisingly
gapacious my memory can be.

I've already gotten rid of many kilos' worth of paper at this point.

A couple of things I want to mention in passing: WTF is it with practically
all airlines that they do not print the effin' year on their boarding passes?
How is leaving off the year a good idea in this time of overwrought "security"
procedures? I have a lot of boarding pass entries on my spreadsheet(s) that
will require cross-checking with other sources. I do not like this.

The same is true for SNCF train tickets, only with these it's at least
theoretically possible to find the date from the "composter" stamp, assuming
it's legible.

Speaking of legible, the other major thing I've discovered is that... there
are a whole lot of receipts that are pretty much completely illegible now.—And
by completely, I mean that holding them at angles to the light and using a
magnifying glass doesn't reveal anything useful (and just takes up time). I
hate the (lack of good) thermal print technology that produced — and still
produced — such abominations. Bad! Bad!

I may always wonder about those events which may now be forever lost in the
sands of time, but I'm happy to have been able to revisit, however briefly,
some extraordinary moments in my and my family's past (some of which I will
doubtless elaborate upon in this blog).

The road between Villard Notre Dame and Villard Reymond in the French Alps
west of Grenoble and south of Vizille is the scariest road I have ever driven,
period, and I have driven some very scary mountain roads (to say nothing of
driving on a bridge in Costa Rica in the late 1990s that we had to help repair
first in order to get over it).

Just getting up to Villard Notre Dame was hair-raising: an extremely narrow
road with scary overhangs...

... and especially having to get through a single-lane, poorly-maintained,
dark, rock-strewn tunnel:

The death road itself hadn't been maintained in years:

There was at least—at least!—at thousand-foot sheer drop to our right for a
significant stretch, and more than once I was sure that our right-side tires
were not 100% on the roadway. But we couldn't back up, couldn't turn around,
could only press forward hoping that the road would not get any narrower
because of rockslides and all. Had there been any further obstruction, we would
have had to hire some kind of heavy-duty helicopter to airlift our car to a
safe place. Or abandon it forever.

The moral is, if you arrive at a road with a gated entrance, and there's a
sign there that says “if you take this road, your auto insurance is not
applicable,” you should really, truly take a different route, no matter how
much you hate the thought of back-tracking.

(Photo: Another of the roadsigns that should have been a clue to reconsider
our route: "Uncertain viability. Travel at your own risk and peril.")

Note: A shorter version of this story was posted as a comment on
Dark Roasted Blend on 2007-08-16 (World’s Most Dangerous Roads, part 4).
Photos are stills taken from this
video.

Every 10 years the water & power authorities are obliged to inspect any
dam in France higher than 20 meters (65 feet), and this means draining the
reservoir down to the dam's footings ("vidange" = "emptying"). Here are the dam
photos, with a few literalesque French-to-English captions thrown in for your
reading pleasure absolutely free!

Behold the dam in summer 2007, he is full of the water:

Behold the dam during vidange. The water, she is gone down 40 meters (130+
feet)! Note well the dark water line at the top of the dam (and also see where
the line of the trees, they stop at the top-left of the photo):

A little further away from the dam, summer 2007; see the line of buoys of
warning across the waterway!:

The same place, after vidange:

The front of the Quinson dam:

And looking up over the dam (remember, he was full up to the line of trees
before the vidange!):

We then drove over to a little town about 8 km (5 miles) away called
Artignosc, where the official "Lac du Quinson" is located (the "lake" in
Quinson is just a place where the river widens), and lo! Here was the view from
the main (okay, only) bridge into town over the reservoir canyon:

And then, looking toward Quinson Lake (Artignosc): all of the without-trees
area of white in the distance, was entirely underwater before the vidange:

Smack-dab (okay, this is really not French at all) in the middle of the lake
is the old bridge—the former main bridge—that used to cross the Verdon River up
until the early 1970s. It was covered in stinky mud and lakeweed. (By the way,
lakeweed when dry is like very, very brittle excelsior.) The entire lake area
looked like another planet entirely:

In addition to inspecting the structural soundness of the dam, authorities
hauled out all sorts of debris:

This once-every-10-years "vidange de retenue du barrage" was so cool! For my
final shots, here's looking at the Verdon River on the other side of the dam.
(Sorry about the power lines in the first shot below, but I really liked the
light in this scene; by the time I got low enough to shoot again without wires,
the light had changed; someday I'll get around to photoshopping the lines out.)
Recreational boating and so on was not disrupted for lucky Quinsonnais vendors,
but the tourist season in Artignosc (boat and kayak rentals, fishing, etc.) was
cut short that year.

The Northridge† quake was terrifying, even though I was living in Pittsburgh
at the time. We were in the process of moving to the Boston area, and my
husband had been home for the Martin Luther King Jr holiday weekend. As I was
taking him to the airport, I turned on the radio for the traffic report, and
instead heard news of a major earthquake affecting Northridge, Reseda, Tarzana,
etc.— in short, places I had grown up in, and where my parents and siblings
still lived.

When I got to the airport, my heart in my throat, I tried to call my family.
The recorded message for the 818 area code was "Due to the earthquake in the
area, your call cannot be completed as dialed." So I tried calling my brother
in Santa Clarita; the recording for that area code: "Due to the mudslides in
the area...."

My parents and siblings had all tried to call me while I was gone, but (@#!)
the cassette tape in my answering machine had run out. (So much for my serving
as "Communications Central" during emergencies!) It was hours before I was able
to talk to any of them, but thankfully they were all OK. I was glued to TV
coverage from the instant I got home (well, OK, from the instant I discovered
that my answering machine tape had run out).

My parents' house sustained about $50K of damage, mostly from the chimneys
exploding through the upstairs walls of one bedroom and the sitting room — but
every wall of the house needed replastering (ironically enough, only one window
broke). They were lucky: they had earthquake insurance (though with a $20K
deductible); their house was one of seven out of 14 on their block still
habitable; and they were able to get contractors in right away to fix the
damage. (Other people waited for months and months.)

My siblings' homes escaped with minor damage — I think one of my brothers
had a hot water heater fall over, and my sister lost part of the cinderblock
fence in their back yard. However, it took awhile for gas and electricity to be
restored in several sectors, so (if I recall correctly) most of them ended up
going over to my parents (whose power was restored quickly, and whose gas was
still in service, amazingly enough).

Since then, all my sibs have put (annoying) baby-locks on all cabinets and
drawers, and battened down their water heaters and large pieces of furniture. I
don't think anyone has anything heavy or loose mounted over their beds.

I was not able to go to California until sometime in November that year.
Even then, 10 months later, there was still a lot of visible damage in some
parts of the San Fernando Valley. Most striking to me was the damage to the
main parking structure at Cal State Northridge: the pancaked concrete parking
levels and the bizarrely twisted steel railings were astonishing and very
sobering to behold. Such sheer power! (The library and many other buildings
were still closed, and lots of classes were being held in the many trailers and
temporary buildings dotting the campus.)

Even so, this wasn't "the big one" (catastrophe still pending).

† Turns out that the epicenter of this 6.7-magnitude quake was actually at
the corner of Reseda Blvd and Strathern Street in Reseda — only two long blocks
from my sister's house!

On February 9, 1971, I was nearly 16, in 10th grade at Taft High School, and
living in Tarzana in the southwestern part of the San Fernando Valley in Los
Angeles. By 6:00 a.m. on school days, my older sister and I were supposed to
already be up and getting ready to leave for an early-morning religion class,
but we were still lolling in bed when the shaking started about a minute after
6. As there had been a fairly significant tremor around the same time about a
month before, I planned on just "riding it out" in bed. As the shaking got
stronger, however, my sister screamed, "Get up, you idiot, it's an earthquake!"
(No duh.) Whatever semblance of calm I had had at the time evaporated, and I
jumped out of bed.

She and I ran out of our room to the top of the stairs, where we met our
brothers coming from their rooms (our bedrooms were on the second floor — ours
was one of the very few "non-ranch-style" houses in the neighborhood). We could
hear our next-door neighbors screaming over the deep sound of the quake itself
and the sound of things falling or breaking. Our chandelier (on a long chain
over the staircase) was swinging back and forth, hitting the walls. I yelled a
prayer for God to protect us just as the electricity failed and the lights went
out. Being plunged into near-total darkness was in some ways scarier than the
shaking itself.

We all made it down the stairs and joined our parents (who came from their
bedroom on the ground floor) in the guest bedroom next to the garage — this was
a preplanned meeting place for just such an emergency (chosen because there was
no second story overhead). We cowered together through the aftershocks until
daylight had fully established itself. We knew that school wouldn't be held
that day, but I can't remember if my dad ended up going to work downtown or
not. (I rather doubt it.)

Our house was spared much damage — a couple of cracks here and there, and
maybe one cracked window. Power was restored fairly quickly, and the first
televised reports started coming in about the VA hospital in Sylmar that was
hard-hit (accounting for most of the deaths)... and of the collapse of an
overpass under construction on the I-5 en route to Santa Clarita. (The pickup
truck that was squashed under the fallen segment of overpass remained there for
months and months afterwards — a very grim sight.)

(As an aside, our Mormon bishop had just finished the graveyard shift in
Santa Monica and was on his way home on the I-405. Just as he reached the crest
and could see the brightly-lit panorama of the Valley before him, the
earthquake struck. The Valley went totally dark, and then fires from broken gas
mains started flaring up. He hadn't felt the earthquake, so he had no idea
whatsoever what had happened — he thought the U.S. was under attack or
somesuch. For someone with serious cardiac problems, it's amazing that he
didn't have a heart attack then and there.)

Later that morning, a friend and I made our way down Ventura Boulevard,
marveling at the cracked streets and shattered or cracked plate-glass display
windows. Not a shop or store seemed to have been spared. We ended up at our
local grocery store, Food Fair (later Theeee Movies of Tarzana), and helped
re-stack boxes and cans. (For safety/liability reasons, we were not allowed to
help clean up the aisles where bottles of cooking oils and dressings and jars
of jams and jellies and peanut butter had fallen and broken. What a mess! —This
was before plastic bottles were widely used, by the way.) Food Fair was the
first store in the Valley to re-open that day (at around noon).

Meanwhile, there were great fears that the Lower Van Norman Dam on the north
side of the Valley was going to collapse. Authorities were draining it as
quickly as they could, but 300,000 people in the surrounding area were ordered
to evacuate. Thankfully, the dam held, though it was damaged beyond repair. The
huge broken slabs were visible from the freeway for a long time afterwards.

Schools were closed for three days to allow for thorough inspection, and of
course when we returned to school, the earthquake took up a lot of class and
social time for several days thereafter.

I remember two sizable aftershocks: one was during the early-morning
religion class. When it started, we all ran outside. And there, on one of the
patches of grass behind the church, a young tree was shaking violently back and
forth — a very vivid image. The other memorable aftershock occurred when I was
in 7th-period art class on the 3rd floor of Taft's C-building. The teacher
yelled "drop!"—which I and all the other students did... but the thought
occurred to me then that getting under one's desk when the floor was likely to
drop out from under one didn't particularly make a whole lot of sense.

Those few moments of hard shaking in the darkness, accompanied by an
other-worldly, loud and penetrating deep sound, was one of the scariest
experiences of my life... but also one of the most interesting and
exciting.

The first time I went to Girl Scout Camp Lakota in California's Frazier Park
(about 100 miles north of L.A.), in late August 1965 when I was 9 years old, I
and easily a hundred other scouts saw a UFO.

We slept under the stars. The night in question was cloudless, moonless, and
pristinely clear — we could see the Milky Way. We had all just gone to bed and
were talking while watching the heavens for shooting stars, when all at once an
enormous, brilliant white disk streaked by overhead. It filled most of the
visible sky as it passed. And as with one voice, practically the entire camp
exclaimed, "Did you see THAT?!"

At the time, I didn't even know the term UFO. The Perseid meteor shower had
long since occurred. I've never read nor heard of anything that could
satisfactorily explain what we'd seen. Swamp gas? No way (no swamps in that dry
place). Some kind of secret USAF aircraft from one of the desert bases not too
far away? ... Implausible, given the size of the thing. Ball lightning?
Nah.

Note, however, that I have not drawn any conclusions about the possible
"alien origins" of this UFO. I am perfectly happy to believe that there may be
other inhabited worlds and that, à la Star Trek, there may be extraterrestrials
that possess the technology to visit our little planet. But "my" UFO remains a
mystery, even if the memory of it passing over the tops of the pine trees
(silhouettes clearly visible against its brilliant light) remains vivid to this
day.

PS: My paternal grandmother (along with hundreds of others) saw a
cigar-shaped UFO over Cincinnati (I believe) in the 1920s.

My grandma (left) looking at a UFO?

And one of my brothers and his friend as teenagers saw a UFO apparently
"siphoning off" from a high tension tower behind our house in L.A. (they had
just returned from dropping their dates off following a dance at a Mormon
church — so no, they weren't drunk nor high). My brother was scared sh*tless
and to this day does not speak of it.

PPS: I would love to see another such phenomenon. Perhaps I already have:
driving homeward after nightfall from BYU on I-15 in the mid-1970s (or possibly
during grad school in the early 1980s), I saw a large array of brilliant round
lights over the cliffs somewhere between Beaver and Cedar City). I remember
trying to figure out what they were at the time.

—What I'd really like to have, of course, is a Close Encounter of the Third
Kind, minus the National Enquirer-style "kidnapped by aliens"
experience.